Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
ambassador to the u.n. what about what's going on in the u.n. this week? with the palestinians looking to have their status -- there's an entire agenda. the idea that we're focusing on one set of talking points is ridiculous. >> i know you to be a pretty nonpartisan guy, do you smell anything fishy with this benghazi investigation or the way it was handled? do you sense any incompetence? because if you talk to john mccain or lindsey graham, you ask the question, are we talking about a cover-up or general inconfidence? >> the idea was, why did they turn down the all the added security? why did the ambassador go without adequate security? that's a real issue. why were these decisions made? the question, then, of the talking points, what did the cia provide, why was the intelligence community late in apparently getting the points right? it's not the first time we've seen things like that. it's worth looking at. but the idea that a month later, we're still focusing on this rather than basic questions of foreign policy on how to deal with terrorism in these areas. seems to me we are missing
was removed from u.n. ambassador susan rice's talking points. in the days following the deadly assault, rice said administration believed the attack was a reaction to an anti-islamic video. but, an associated press report says former cia director david petraeus testified on friday that he believed all along that the attack on the consulate was a terrorist strike. >> so let's -- before we set up these clips, let's make sure we set this up right. so we've been hearing, mark halperin, that susan rice said what she said because she was reading straight intel from the cia. we find out from david tet pet trace, this isn't true. that immediately david petraeus and intel officials knew this was an al qaeda attack. right? >> it's still kind of confusing. >> i'm basing that on "the new york times" reports and everything that i read through the weekend. >> totality of the reporting is there was another line coming out of the closed hearing was that they didn't want to say everything they knew in public because they didn't want the terrorists to know that tus government was on to them. >> i heard that.
that has nothing to do with health food. >> it's turning into a proxy war between senator john mccain and u.n. ambassador susan rice. top intelligence officials say they knew from the beginning that terrorism was involved in the attacks but kept rice's comments vague to avoid compromising future legal proceedings. they knew terrorism was involved but didn't know whether the attacks were planned in advance and they didn't have the suspect's identity. still, many house repub cans are saying he's unfit to succeed secretary clinton at the state department. >> i'm just curious. john heilman, first of all -- >> elizabeth warren. >> let's just say what happened, okay? the president's punch line was al qaeda is on the run, blah, blah, blah. they politicized intel. guess what, white houses do that. i'm not shocked, i'm not stunned. i wish they wouldn't have done it. but how do you protect americans in the future and what happened after the ambassador was already killed? but how long has susan rice been in public service, like since her 20s, right? >> a long time. >> so we actually have people on capit
again. >> hey, joe. >> you know, susan rice, our u.n. ambassador, has been taking a lot of heat. john mccain, lindsey graham going after her for repeating what the president says was the intel that was available at the time. you're on the committee. can you tell us, was susan rice, from what you know, just repeating what was being told to everybody in washington at the time on what had happened in benghazi? >> well, here's what i think, joe. i think without question, i mean, you know, you've got guys storming a consulate with ak-47s, with rpgs and firing mortars. they knew immediately this was a terrorist attack. there wasn't any question about that. and why the white house didn't come out and say that immediately, i don't know. they tried to soften it somewhat with regard to it was a spontaneous action that stemmed from a protest. there was a question about whether protesters were there. and five days later, susan rice goes on tv and says that not only was it a protest, but it apparently stemmed from this trailer or this movie that had been shown. and very honestly by that point in time
. the un, everybody involved. egypt trying to broker peace also. what does the president need to do to move this process forward? >> he needs to get engaged. he needs to get engaged very seriously. i was struck this morning by looking at the papers, at the consensus expressed by "the washington post" editorial, which is very good, sometimes i disagree with them, but it's very good today, and a couple columnists on the op-ed page, and they all say the same thing which i endorse. namely, this is a real challenge to get at the heart of the problems. if we simply patch this up, somehow or other, between hamas and israel, be if we still patch it up a little bit between the palestinian authority and israel, we'll have a repetition in no time flat. but in the meantime two things are happening in the region, which are not going to be reversed easily. u.s. influence is declining, arab radicalism is intensifying. and that's not a good thing either for stability or the future of israel. >> how does the president engage most constructively to try to reverse at least one of those two trends to stop the
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)